What is Crosleycare?ropes

Crosleycare is the alternative to government-run healthcare. Crosleycare unbinds the government ropes that tie you up in knots. It exists to keep healthcare sane.

To finance healthcare for all, taxpayers may pay for policies who can not afford them and receive a tax credit for doing so.

Under Crosleycare, all conditions are covered and there are no deductibles which impede access to healthcare. To keep costs under control the individual is empowered to make a 10% copay on ALL healthcare expenditures. For the poor a copay fund is established from which co-pays are subtracted, the remainder going to the patient at year’s end.

The copay, however, is at the discretion of the provider. Each provider can opt to charge or not charge at any time, without penalty, a copay in order to modulate flow.

Fee for service no longer exists under Crosleycare as all providers are paid on availability to that patient which means that each provider receives a monthly fee based upon the patient’s election. If a patient decides to leave that provider, the provider will no longer receive a monthly fee for that patient. The patient or provider may terminate the contractual relationship at any time.

Patients may pay providers individually or they may pay through their company. The payment is made after the period of provider availability has expired, and there is no warranty or guarantee of future services. It matters not that the patient visited the provider during the time period as providers are being paid for availability, not for services rendered.

Companies or patients will make checks payable to the following entities: primary provider, specialty group, hospital, dme, pharmacy, lab, therapy. As need be, each provider may have to select a resource provider as a backup for extraordinary expenses – payable in a similar scheme. All provider classes are reimbursed every month whether the patient is seen or not. It will no longer be necessary for the provider to engage in complex coding, nor will it be necessary to code in a diagnosis. Those codes were worthless anyway as providers were entering codes that paid not those that told the truth.

Crosleycare will yield the biggest bang for the buck because patients will have full access to care, yet they will be in command of who their provider will be. Because providers are paid a more fixed amount, tests and procedures in the office will be performed more wisely. Companies wishing to sell machines, tests and supplies to providers will have to be more realistic in their prices.

The cost of drugs will lower as pharmacists become more selective in which medicines to stock. Hospitals likewise will become better at delivering higher quality care for a cheaper price. Therapy companies will become better at educating patients into doing much of their therapy at home.

Under Crosleycare, the government enjoys no blank-check rights to view any patient’s medical information without specific, written permission, as there is no need to do so for payment. Under Crosleycare, doctors are free to pursue their own method of record-keeping as customized record-keeping is integral to the well-functioning of each provider and patient. Under Crosleycare providers are free to transmit pertinent medical information to each other minus government-mandated gobbledygook thus ensuring more effective communication.

Finally, under Crosleycare, no central repository of medical information is warranted. This is bad news for the control freaks, elitists, tyrants, megadata deviants who derive sexual thrills at viewing large amounts of useless data, and immoral genetic engineers at Los Alamos who had hoped to use this massive collated data against the people of the United States of America should they decide to step out of line.

Of course, big business will attempt to destroy this model as their misguided ambition is to grow as big as a cancer cell. Large companies, and their clueless, unenlightened leaders don’t why they want to be cancer cells; they just do. So, to combat this, the people will have to insist that a company, any company, for the health of the body can only grow so big.

With a greater number of medium-sized companies competing against each other, innovation will flourish as costs are driven down. This makes sense to most people. Of course, if you attended an elite business school which specializes in reverse-engineering people from bright to stupid, this plan will be lost on you.

Common Core

Well, sniffs the liberal, Common Core was not even invented by the government.

My response: I don’t give a good good damn who invented it. Who invented it is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether it is a good idea or not.

In truth, Common Core is a bad idea, a very bad idea.

In truth, it is a Maginot line, an idiotic attempt to keep truth from entering the domain of liberal orthodoxy.

Just as the Maginot line failed the French in keeping out invaders so too will Common Core fail the left.

How can we know this?

Well, one way is to look at the people who are promoting Common Core.

When leaders on the left are for it, the idea, in this day and age, should always raise eyebrows.

When Harvard elitists are for it, one should be doubly suspect.

Still, as they say, a broken clock is right twice a day, so we should always look to other ways to analyze an issue.

Let’s start by asking questions, always a dangerous idea to the left.

What is Common Core?

Common Core is a an attempt to standardize learning within the United States.

Proponents feel that we need to ensure that students possess a core knowledge within certain disciplines or fields of study to ensure a better educated citizenry for the workplace and for general issues.

These proponents feel that education is sloppy, substandard and uneven in many schools and areas.

They could be right, and so Common Core sounds on paper like a good idea.

How can one possibly be against it?

Well, as Ronald Reagan used to say: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

And as Thomas Jefferson might say: We must do no more good than the public can bear.

Who is to determine Common Core? Where will these people come from? What will be their background? How will they be chosen?

Suppose a new thinker arises out the hinterlands to challenge the orthodoxy in learning, and further suppose that this new thinking challenges the vested interests in Common Core – how will this new thinker and his ways be received?

Does not society thrive on new ideas?

Suppose that the arbiters of Common Core view this young would-be Jesus Christ a threat and proceed to ban his teaching?

What redress will this new teacher’s adherents have? Will they be punished?

What about old ideas?

What will happen with existing ideas such as creationism that oppose the theory of evolution favored by the liberal establishment?

Will creationism be struck down by Common Core?

Should society be afraid of ideas no matter how ridiculous?

If an idea is stupid, in time will it not prove itself to be so?

Must not a pluralistic society by necessity tolerate stupid ideas? Is it not the price we pay for being free?

Must not a pluralistic society by necessity be uneven in its education. Is it not the price we pay for being free?

Will Common Core permit me as an individual to even ask these questions?

I think not.

Common Core in time will exert a numbing effect on education and learning as the years go by.

Students will come to be force-fed orthodoxy at the expense of thinking freely. In time, thinking freely will become anathema to Common Core – a threat to its existence.

Just as Obamacare would prohibit citizens from purchasing healthcare outside what the government offers, so would Common Core prohibit thinking outside what the supreme leaders of Common Core prescribe.

Ultimately, Common Core becomes a threat to The Bill of Rights and to free speech itself.

We can see already in our universities the primordial beginnings of Common Core via political correctness, policies against “hate speech” that the elites get to define and banishment of those speakers too dangerous to be heard.

The enlightened man has no fear of words. He is secure, sword of free thinking at hand.

The unenlightened man is insecure. He is afraid of everyone and everything.

He is especially afraid of words and new ideas; and so to protect himself, he sets up walls, a false protector, a Maginot line called Common Core.

A Consistent Constitution

Let us examine the opinion of Justice Roberts, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States as it applies to the Affordable Care Act, also known by we recipients and serfs as Obamacare.

Justice Roberts states that the individual mandate, which compels you to purchase health insurance, can not be justified constitutionally under those clauses of the Constitution which govern regulation of commerce in the United States.

Because not purchasing health insurance is a negative event, not a positive event, Justice Roberts states that Congress can not regulate it. He states that if Congress is given the power to regulate a negative event, a bad example could be set in which Congress would be empowered to regulate all sorts of things, for example, the refusal to purchase pop-tarts.

It seems reasonable to conclude that Justice Roberts believes that Congress does not enjoy any power whatsoever to regulate the refusal to purchase healthcare insurance. If he felt to the contrary, he would have stated so directly, correct?

In the same opinion, Justice Roberts then states that the individual mandate can be supported under those portions of the constitution granting Congress the power to tax. So, he concludes that the individual mandate is constitutional.

Pursuant to this, Congress has set up all sorts of rules regarding the mandate and its regulation.

Fine, but not fine.

Why is Congress not prohibited from doing so?

I thought Justice Roberts indicated as much in his opinion by detailing the horrors of regulating such a negative event and by stating that regulation thereof could not be justified under those clauses that empower Congress to regulate commerce.

I’m confused.

Are you confused?

Let’s not be coy here.

We all can see what the Chief Justice is doing.

He is playing a game with the Constitution.

Putting aside the absurdity of separating taxation from regulation, as one necessarily invites the other, the Chief Justice is using one part of the Constitution, the power to tax, to supersede another, the power to regulate; and then after validating Obamacare, reinvigorating the power of Congress to regulate.

He does so under the dangerous and tenuous concept that every attempt must be made to save a law from being struck down as unconstitutional.


By this logic, if Congress passes a law mandating genocide, we must look for a way to justify it, even it means ignoring valid parts of the Constitution.

Hmm. I think not.

The Constitution must be consistent within itself.

As such, the correct approach necessarily must be to make every attempt to strike down a law that is inconsistent with any other part of the Constitution.

If we do not take this approach, new laws and interpretations can encroach upon those existing to strike down those that came before.

Each section of the Constitution possesses its own self-standing validity until both the people and the Supreme Court deem so.

We must take a prohibitive approach to the Constitution if we are to preserve it.

What Justice Roberts is doing is despotically setting himself above the Constitution. He is not applying the Constitution but abrogating it through negation of the parts he finds inconvenient.

These actions set him above the Constitution, a power he does not enjoy as only the people themselves enjoy that privilege.

Indeed, the Roberts opinion on Obamacare is by virtue of its inconsistency outside the Constitution.

This is not a minor point. The Supreme Court is empowered by the Constitution and as such can not sit outside it. It’s members and its opinions must be consistent with the Constitution itself.

When the opinion sits outside the Constitution itself, that opinion is unconstitutional and must therefore be vacated.


Was Ronald Reagan a great President?

Well, for sure, if you are conservative he was a great President.

To the left he was anathema, the incarnation of evil and malevolence.

Some have argued that a great President must be a war President.

This may be an unfair criterion as war is not always an event a President has the opportunity to create or confront.

It is probably more fair to ask how the President performed with the problems he was confronted with.

In that respect Reagan will certainly be hailed as a great President by the right for it was he who stared down the Soviet Union, forcing the tearing down of the Berlin Wall – which is, of course, precisely why the left reviles him.

Indeed, the left will continue to despise and attack Reagan until the smoke clears.

Yet, make no mistake about it, some day, centuries from now, the smoke will clear.

In the future, when socialism can be viewed objectively for what it is, as nothing more than monarchy in disguise, Reagan’s character will loom large.

Greater than his political achievements, for those of us who lived through his era, was his character.

It wasn’t just what he did, but the values he stood for and the things he said.

His reference to a “thousand points of light” seemed corny at the time, but clearly he used his words carefully.

A thousand points of light refers to you the individual American, more powerful than any single flicker the elitists on the left can muster.

“We can not do for others what they will not do for themselves,” was reviled as harsh and cruel by the left, but how pertinent and haunting these words reverberate today in light of our failures in the Middle East abroad and in our own cities here in the United States.

What he was trying to demonstrate were the responsible limits of the Federal government and the necessity of a good measure of individual reliance.

He was viewed as a warmonger by the left even before he took office in 1980. “Ronnie has his finger on the button,” was a common bleating by the left at the time, yet Ronald Reagan, other than a rescuing of students in Grenada, engaged in no major wars and produced no debacles that were responsible for thousands of deaths, unlike his so-called enlightened successors.

When the one unfortunate tragedy, the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon, did occur, Reagan immediately reversed course and moved us out of the Middle East.

Some warmonger.

Rather than starting wars he believed in peace through strength.

A good defense was a strong offense he felt.

He began research into what he termed the Strategic Defense Initiative, a program that could hopefully shoot down incoming missiles.

How could one possibly be against defending oneself?

Yet, the left, ever loony, reviled the SDI as Star Wars.

In the face of a world where more despotic regimes gain ICBMs, how important Reagan’s efforts become.

Regarding the economy, Reagan, stated that no one mind in the central government could be as effective as a million Americans thinking on their own, again referring to the “thousand points of light.”

His economics which would allow Americans to keep most of their hard-earned money was viewed as Voodoo Economics or simply Reaganomics.

Just as Lincoln instructed his council, when confronted about Grant’s drinking, to find out what he was drinking and send a case to his other generals, so can we say the same about Reagan and his economics.

Perhaps, President Obama himself might imbibe.

Again, Reagan’s words reverberate as we enter the seventh year of the Great Malaise.

So what is greatness?

Can the media make a President great simply by screaming that he is great?

Can the media make a President not great by proclaiming him not great?

The word great, means big – as in vast, enormous.

Was Ronald Reagan a big President?

What do you think?

If he was not so big, why does the left continue to attack him?

A little President is like a speck of dust on the shoulder, easily shaken off.

Ronald Reagan, his life, his words, his character continue to reverberate.

All In Against You

Are you a liberal who reads The New York Times while reviling The Wall Street Journal?

How about the other way around?

Are you a conservative who loathes the The New York Times while gobbling up every tidbit The Wall Street Journal has to offer?

Let me buy you a ticket on the clue jet.

Both these papers are flip sides of the same coin, and neither of them gives a rat’s ass about you.

They are both recipients, benefactors and promoters of big government and big business.

They don’t give two flips and a fiddle about you.

They prop each other up.

The people who get to write there are all puppets and admirers of Big USA.

I don’t care what they say in response.

They will always ultimately support the establishment.

They will never offer any radically new solutions that empower you.

Why would they want that?

Both papers benefit by virtue of a national agenda.

Yielding power to yokels like you would diminish their importance.

You see, my friend, the true battle is not between right and left, conservative and liberal, democrat and republican – but between big and small.

And both these papers represent big – big government and big business.

Why would you care about either one – big government or big business?

Has either one done anything for you lately save steal your money through bailouts and largess?

No, they don’t care about you at all.

And neither do the papers that support them.

They keep you fighting each other while they laugh all the way to the bank.


We’ve been talking about abortion since I was a young man, over thirty years ago.

Politically, the discussion is fruitless.

There can be no winners in discussing abortion as the battle is one for a different arena.

Abortion deals with life and death, your relationship to God, if any, and your personal philosophy about life, death and the cosmos.

Abortion is a battle for the soul.

Fighting the battle politically is a winless battle, a never-ending war with one side leapfrogging over the other in successive generations.

If it were possible to win the battle, it would have been won already.

Now, it matters not what your personal view may be; the battle can not be won decisively.

Only bitterness can ensue.

What we can agree upon is that if an abortion is to be undertaken, it be performed in a safe, controlled environment by qualified medical professionals who are also schooled extensively in ethics, morals, divinity. and philosophy.

This is not necessarily a capitulation.

Some may argue that abortions of all types be banned; yet experience has taught us  that government bans are useless and unenforceable and certainly no match for human ingenuity.

If a woman really wants an abortion, she will get it.

It is far better to have her see a skilled professional who may be able to offer information that may persuade her otherwise.

Given that, government enjoys no right to either sanction or outlaw abortion.

Abortion belongs to the netherworld, outside the reach of man’s comprehension and grasp.

Brother A and Brother B

I’m going to tell you a story about your heritage.

So, sit back and enjoy.

Centuries ago, there were two brothers, Brother A and Brother B.  They lived in the old country.

Now, their names could have been Helmut and Horst, Pierre and Francois, Ben and Bill, Jose and Rodrigo – it does not matter.

Here we will call them Brother A and Brother B.

Quite frankly, they didn’t have it so good in the old country.  Indeed, they lived in a hovel with dirt floors.  The house leaked and it was hot in the summer and freezing in the winter.

The brothers did not look much better than the house.  They had half their teeth missing and they were skinny and unkempt.

Half their brothers and sisters had been lost to either disease, malnutrition or useless wars fought by the King.

Speaking of the King, he lived not too far away.

In contrast to Brother A and Brother B, he lived in a glorious mansion, befitting, of course, a King.  The roof surely did not leak and the floors sure were not made of dirt.  Food was plentiful and the King was well-fed.  Almost all of his family was still alive as he enjoyed the best care that could be given in that age.  For sure, his teeth were in better shape.

One day, while sitting in their hovel, as the cold, drizzling rain came through the roof, Brother B said to his elder brother, “Brother, I can not take it any more.  I’m leaving.”

Brother A:  Where will you go?

Brother B:  America.

Brother A:  Look, I know you are upset, but things are going to get better.  The King does not know what is going on.  Hang in there.  Give it one more year.

Brother B loved his older brother. He looked up to him, so he decided to give it another year.

Well, one year passed and not only did things not get better, they got worse.  So, one day, Brother B told his elder brother that he was leaving.

Brother B:  Bro, I love you, but I’m leaving.  The King does know what is going on, and I’m leaving. I’m going to America.

Brother A:  America, again?  Dude, half the people die on the trip over there.

Brother B:  And I will be one hundred percent dead if I stay.  You can have everything.  I’m going.

And so Brother B left.

And that is the end of the story.

Now, here’s the thing.  Everything that you as an American are was handed down to you by Brother B.  Everything that a European is was handed down to him or her by Brother A.

Why would you as an American want to forsake that legacy that your ancestor Brother B handed down to you just because Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and a bunch of elitist liberals want you to go back to the feudalistic mindset of Brother A?

Why would you want to disrespect your ancestor, Brother B?